Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
from the knowledge-is-good dept
He points out the reality of the situation. As Bonds' lawyers fight to keep certain evidence out of the case, the details of that evidence is widely available to anyone on the internet, and many potential jurors might see it. One way to deal with it might be to ban all such jurors, but in high profile cases, this becomes more and more difficult. From there, Dize points out that this view of a jury that can't do any research isn't quite as historical as some believe:
High-profile cases such as USA v. Bonds highlight the impact that Internet and social media are having on the ability to get an impartial jury and a fair trial. However, as Caren Myers Morrison has pointed out in her article, "Jury 2.0," forthcoming in the Hastings Law Review, the idea of "impartiality" does not necessarily require an ignorant or passive jury.Again, I recognize the potential downsides here. People can be misled. They can find information that isn't accurate, and there may be no one to tell the other side of the story. That's a serious issue. But does keeping a jury ignorant outside of two specific sources really present the best solution? Is there some third (or fourth) alternative, that gives the jury more leeway in seeking out information in a more supervised manner that allows the attorneys for either side to also present their arguments over the evidence, rather than just letting them present the evidence? Perhaps it comes down to: what do we want the jury system to do? Do we want it to help adjudicate the truth of the situation, or simply weigh two competing arguments? Something tells me that having them responsible for seeking out the truth could be more effective.
Professor Morrison, who teaches law at Georgia State University, points out that in the Nineteenth Century, the meaning of an impartial jury was more open to debate. To say a juror was "impartial" simply meant that he or she had no manifest conflicts of interest, i.e. the juror was not family, friend, or enemy of the parties. And it was not uncommon for jurors to have personal knowledge of the events and people involved.
As this country moved into the Twentieth Century, the idea that jurors should be ignorant of the facts and parties became solidified. As a result, today's jurors are dismissed with regularity for simply having familiarity or acquaintance with a defendant.
With Bonds' widespread popularity, the publicity of his case, and the swift ease of online research, all this begs the question: Can Bonds get an "impartial" jury, especially in San Francisco where Bonds played for 14 years, breaking numerous records and garnering worldwide fame? Or does the jury system need to bend back in time to give the home run hitter his day in court?